Re-baptized?

[singlecandle]

Hi, I grew up in a non-denominational family that attended an assemblies-of-God church and that is where I was baptized.

When I was baptized I was never told how significant it was and what power there is in a Biblical baptism.

Looking back, I don't see the pastor using the Word of God properly at my
baptism at all. Because of this, should I get re-baptized by someone who
administers baptism biblically?

Thank you!

 

[Tigger45]

Baptism is a sacrament/mystery instituted by God to impart His grace upon an obedient believer. Baptism is more about God and the one being baptized then the one doing the baptizing.

 

[alexnbethmom]

Lutherans believe in one baptism for the remission of sins - if your baptism was done with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then it is a biblical baptism. if you aren't sure that it was done that way, or are positive that it was NOT done that way (with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), then you might want to speak to a pastor about possibly being re-baptized.

 

[bach90]

Any Baptism performed with the proper form: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (or "Holy Spirit") is valid regardless who administers it.

I don't know if AoG administers Baptism in the name of the Trinity, as far as I know, they do. Sometimes a conditional Baptism is performed, that is the form used would be "if you are not baptized, then I baptize you..." But, properly speaking, it is impossible to re-Baptize somebody.

The issue of proper form is imperative because it is impossible to be saved without Baptism, that is why the church has traditionally offered conditional Baptism to those who ask of it. As a general rule, people converting to Lutheranism from the RCC, EO, or Anglicans are not conditionally baptized because those churches have a certainly valid Baptism (although Anglicans do not have a valid Eucharist). Some evangelicals are conditionally baptized. Non-Christians such as Mormons and JW's which have a ritual resembling Christian baptism are unconditionally baptized.

This would be something to discuss with your pastor.

 

[filosofer]

I have never heard of “conditional baptizing.” But then again, I went to seminary a few decades ago...

If they were baptized in a Christian church, then no need for Baptism. If outside the Christian Church (i.e. Mormon, JW), then I baptize. I never “conditionally baptize.”

 

[DaRev]

The issue of proper form is imperative because it is impossible to be saved without Baptism,

Not true. While Baptism is necessary for salvation, it is not absolutely necessary.

that is why the church has traditionally offered conditional Baptism to those who ask of it.

I've never heard of this either, and I went to seminary in the past decade.

 

[bach90]

Not true. While Baptism is necessary for salvation, it is not absolutely necessary.

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.

They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism. - AC IX

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." - John 3:5

There is absolutely no salvation without Baptism. Scripture and the ECFs seem pretty unanimous on this. The language in the AC is pretty strict and narrow as well.



I don't think the conditional Baptism is a universal thing. I've heard of it in some places if there's doubt about the original Baptism. Maybe there are different terms for it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I have never heard of “conditional baptizing.” But then again, I went to seminary a few decades ago...

If they were baptized in a Christian church, then no need for Baptism. If outside the Christian Church (i.e. Mormon, JW), then I baptize. I never “conditionally baptize.”

Not true. While Baptism is necessary for salvation, it is not absolutely necessary.



I've never heard of this either, and I went to seminary in the past decade.

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.

They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism. - AC IX

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." - John 3:5


I don't think the conditional Baptism is a universal thing. I've heard of it in some places if there's doubt about the original Baptism. Maybe there are different terms for it.

I believe that the EO Church has what is called a conditional baptism in instances where there is a possibility that a person has been baptized, but does not know for sure, or when they know that they have been baptized, but are not sure if the trinitarian formula was followed.

 

[bach90]

I believe that the EO Church has what is called a conditional baptism in instances where there is a possibility that a person has been baptized, but does not know for sure, or when they know that they have been baptized, but are not sure if the trinitarian formula was followed.

Yeah, they put it under economia. I think the EO are a bit stricter with Protestants though, unconditionally baptizing some. Even with the RCC, some EO priests insist on baptizing RC converts. Obviously you want to ensure that a congregant is properly baptized, but to hold that all Baptisms and all Sacraments outside of a particular denomination almost sounds like you're saying that the church and not the Word makes the Sacraments valid.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yeah, they put it under economia. I think the EO are a bit stricter with Protestants though, unconditionally baptizing some. Even with the RCC, some EO priests insist on baptizing RC converts. Obviously you want to ensure that a congregant is properly baptized, but to hold that all Baptisms and all Sacraments outside of a particular denomination almost sounds like you're saying that the church and not the Word makes the Sacraments valid.

There are a few Sees that do indeed take a zero tolerance view of baptisms outside of their Church, however these Bishops are very few. For the most part, their policy is about the same as ours.

 

[Lupinus]

If a Christian baptism was performed, it doesn't need to be done again. And quiet frankly, shouldn't as doing so would make it about us and not about God.

Now, for those who aren't sure if their baptism was done properly, or who were never baptized or were baptized outside of a Christian congregation, or aren't sure if their parents had them baptized as a child, then absolutely they should be baptized. If they weren't baptized it of course rectifies that, and if they were (so long as, again, they don't desire to be "rebaptized" to make it about them) then I don't see there being any harm.

 

[DaRev]

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.

They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism. - AC IX

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." - John 3:5

There is absolutely no salvation without Baptism. Scripture and the ECFs seem pretty unanimous on this. The language in the AC is pretty strict and narrow as well.

Mark 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." The Scripture does not say "whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned".
Thus the Lutheran teaching that Baptism is necessary for salvation but not absolutely necessary. Also, there is the example of all true believers in the OT were saved without baptism.
Also, one who has heard the word of the Gospel, which is also one of the means of grace, and received saving faith is not necessarily condemned should he die before having the opportunity to be Baptized. To say an individual is lost in such a situation is to place the work of Baptism as a condition of salvation, and Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.

 

[Luther073082]

Hi, I grew up in a non-denominational family that attended an assemblies-of-God church and that is where I was baptized.

When I was baptized I was never told how significant it was and what power there is in a Biblical baptism.

Looking back, I don't see the pastor using the Word of God properly at my
baptism at all. Because of this, should I get re-baptized by someone who
administers baptism biblically?

Thank you!

As long as the baptism was done in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and done with water, it doesn't matter what the beliefs of the person conducting the baptism are. Baptism is a work of God far more then a work of man. God doesn't mess things up when he's invoked.

However I would say if it was not done this way or you are not sure I would talk to a pastor about being baptized again.

 

[bach90]

Mark 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." The Scripture does not say "whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned".
Thus the Lutheran teaching that Baptism is necessary for salvation but not absolutely necessary. Also, there is the example of all true believers in the OT were saved without baptism.
Also, one who has heard the word of the Gospel, which is also one of the means of grace, and received saving faith is not necessarily condemned should he die before having the opportunity to be Baptized. To say an individual is lost in such a situation is to place the work of Baptism as a condition of salvation, and Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.

DaRev,

I think I'm going beyond the OP's topic here, but I don't see how Mark 16:16, assuming that it's part of the original (which for the sake of the argument I'll assume), throws off my point.

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned .

So if one is A) baptized and B) believes, then one is C) saved. Baptism and belief then are sufficient for salvation, no problems here.

Of course this implies that if one is not saved, then one either was not baptized or one did not believe, or both. More on this in a second.


The second part of this Scripture, If you A) do not believe, then you will be B) condemned. It does not logically follow that if you believe then you are not condemned, that's just denying the antecedent which is never a valid inference.

Taking these two statements, all we get is that if you are not saved, you either don't believe or are not baptized (or both). Indeed if you do not believe, you will be condemned (from the second part of the statement). This verse simply does not support your inference.

In short, If you are not saved you either did not believe or were not Baptized, it would be absurd to say that somebody with true faith was not saved, so it must be that they weren't Baptized.


When Peter compares Baptism to the Ark, one has to ask what happened to those outside the Ark? Obviously, they all perished. Likewise, all without Baptism will perish.


Also, I don't think it makes sense to say something is necessary but not absolutely necessary. That's basically saying something's absolute but not absolutely absolute. (In which case it's not absolute). Either something is necessary or it's not, there's no real middle ground in the definition of necessary, at least in how the word is technically defined.

Again, where does the AC on Baptism allow for exceptions?
Again, where does John 3:5 allow exceptions?

I just don't see Scripture providing an escape clause here.


I'll just wait for anybody to bring up the thief on the cross because I have 2, really 3, great reasons why that's a completely invalid argument.

 

[LilLamb219]

Baptism is necessary...yes, because scriptures say it is so. But scripture also does not condemn those who have faith but haven't had the chance to be baptized because we are saved by grace through faith. That's why it's not absolutely necessary. Baptism is a means of grace to give us faith.

 

[DaRev]

DaRev,

I think I'm going beyond the OP's topic here, but I don't see how Mark 16:16, assuming that it's part of the original (which for the sake of the argument I'll assume), throws off my point.

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned .

So if one is A) baptized and B) believes, then one is C) saved. Baptism and belief then are sufficient for salvation, no problems here.

Of course this implies that if one is not saved, then one either was not baptized or one did not believe, or both. More on this in a second.


The second part of this Scripture, If you A) do not believe, then you will be B) condemned. It does not logically follow that if you believe then you are not condemned, that's just denying the antecedent which is never a valid inference.

Taking these two statements, all we get is that if you are not saved, you either don't believe or are not baptized (or both). Indeed if you do not believe, you will be condemned (from the second part of the statement). This verse simply does not support your inference.

In short, If you are not saved you either did not believe or were not Baptized, it would be absurd to say that somebody with true faith was not saved, so it must be that they weren't Baptized.


When Peter compares Baptism to the Ark, one has to ask what happened to those outside the Ark? Obviously, they all perished. Likewise, all without Baptism will perish.


Also, I don't think it makes sense to say something is necessary but not absolutely necessary. That's basically saying something's absolute but not absolutely absolute. (In which case it's not absolute). Either something is necessary or it's not, there's no real middle ground in the definition of necessary, at least in how the word is technically defined.

Again, where does the AC on Baptism allow for exceptions?
Again, where does John 3:5 allow exceptions?

I just don't see Scripture providing an escape clause here.


I'll just wait for anybody to bring up the thief on the cross because I have 2, really 3, great reasons why that's a completely invalid argument.

Then you would have to agree that salvation is not by grace alone through faith alone. You are making salvation conditional on a work that people must cooperate with. Neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions support such a notion. They simply don't. Thus the reason that Lutherans teach that Baptism is necessary (as per the command of God) but not absolutely necessary (as per the teaching of God of salvation by grace through faith). Our faith is not defined by baptism. It's actually the other way around.

Are you so certain that every stillborn infant is condemned to hell simply because they did not have the opportunity to be baptized? Or will you agree with the word of God who has mercy and compassion on whom he will?

 

[bach90]

Then you would have to agree that salvation is not by grace alone through faith alone. You are making salvation conditional on a work that people must cooperate with. Neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions support such a notion. They simply don't. Thus the reason that Lutherans teach that Baptism is necessary (as per the command of God) but not absolutely necessary (as per the teaching of God of salvation by grace through faith). Our faith is not defined by baptism. It's actually the other way around.

Are you so certain that every stillborn infant is condemned to hell simply because they did not have the opportunity to be baptized? Or will you agree with the word of God who has mercy and compassion on whom he will?

To your first point,

Short answer: No, I'm not making faith a work.

Long answer: Baptism and Faith are so deeply connected that it's impossible to separate them from one another. If you have one, you have the other, if you lack one, you lack the other. Every example in Scripture has a person being Baptized immediately after coming to faith. There's no delay between the two. Also Baptism would indeed be works-righteousness if it were a work of man. Obviously though it's God's work, even though it's essential it's still not about me. My Baptism saves me. Since when is Baptism ever a work of man, or conditional, or cooperative, or synergistic? Although, Baptists accuse me of that all the time.

Now if I were to say, you must be a visible member of the Lutheran church to be saved, that would be works righteousness. That's what Walther condemns in Law & Gospel, but Baptism is never about law it's always pure Gospel. Of course there are non-Lutherans who are saved, but only Christians can be saved and nobody can be a Christian without being Baptized.

On your second question, it's a tough answer, but much simpler. The AC is even more explicit on this than the Scriptures are; that children can be saved without Baptism is condemned as an Anabaptist heresy.


I still don't understand your use of the word necessary but not absolutely necessary. It's a contradiction in terms, it's like saying red but not really red.

Necessary

a : of an inevitable nature : inescapable
b (1) : logically unavoidable (2) : that cannot be denied without contradiction
c : determined or produced by the previous condition of things
d : compulsory
2
: absolutely needed : required



You either believe Baptism is necessary for salvation or that it's not. There's no middle ground.

Still waiting for a quote from the AC or an example from Scripture of a person being saved without Baptism. (John 3:5).

And even though it's not Scripture, the early Christians were completely unanimous that nobody was saved without Baptism. It was only the Baptists who started this and later on some in the RCC and some Anglicans with their "baptism of desire" nonsense.

 

[alexnbethmom]

the thief on the cross.

wow, that was hard.

 

[bach90]

Sorry, sometimes I'm sarcastic/snarky with the TOTC because I've explained it to my Baptist friends about 70 times.

First, Christian baptism wasn't instituted until after the Resurrection, as Matthew clearly testifies. So, it's irrelevant that the thief wasn't baptized. It's like saying Moses wasn't baptized, or that Abraham wasn't baptized, or that Isaiah wasn't baptized.

Second, even if you're going to hold that John's baptism worked the forgiveness of sins (Chemnitz did, Luther didn't, there's great theologians on both sides of the issue), there's no evidence that he wasn't baptized. That's an assumption you have to bring to the text. Although I would admit that the assumption should be that he wasn't baptized, early Christians seemed to believe that he was. There's early tradition that he was in fact baptized (Shepherd of Hermas mentions it I think? C. 110-120), but it's definitely not 100%.

Third, if the Son of God is right in front of you and physically tells you that you will be saved, that's a promise you can take to the bank. It doesn't establish that people are saved without Baptism. problem with this argument is that you get people who do say that Jesus came to them in a vision and told them and you just can't argue with that. But I've always thought that this argument still relies on the first one a bit, because this argument has the tendency to equivocate Christian baptism with John's baptism which I don't think is the case (Acts 19 seems to support my view here that John's baptism was insufficient after the resurrection).

I've always used the first one when discussing this with Baptists, because I've always though it's the strongest exegetically. They simply can't deny the chronology and the internal consistency. The other two always seem like you have to bring a few assumptions that may or may not be true to the text, whereas the first one stands on Scripture alone.

 

[Lupinus]

So then it's your position that an adult who comes to faith but dies driving to his or her baptism is still not saved? Because they never had the chance to actually be baptized?

As Rev said, the Lutheran teaching on this is clear. Baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary.